As Jehovah's Witnesses, petitioner and his father (1) have religious
objections to receiving transfusions of whole blood products. Accordingly, petitioner's
father signed a form provided to him by the hospital entitled "Transfusion Blood
Refusal," on which he indicated that his son is "one of Jehovah's Witnesses and refuse[s]
transfusion of whole blood or any of its primary components," although he would
condone acceptance of all available "blood fractions or blood alternatives." Just above
his signature on that form, petitioner's father crossed out the following preprinted
paragraph:

"Refusal of Blood transfusion for a minor. As the parent/guardian of
a minor child I understand that the doctor(s) treating my child will make
every effort to respect my beliefs regarding the transfusion of blood
products as indicated above. However I also recognize that my child's
physicians have a legal obligation not to withhold therapy they think is
necessary to keep my child alive or to keep him/her from serious harm or
permanent injury or disability. I understand therefore that, if the treating
physician believes transfusion, after evaluating alternative non-blood
medical management, is necessary to save my child's life, or to prevent
serious irreversible harm, my child may be transfused although every effort
will be made to avoid this."

Below that crossed out paragraph, father handwrote the following statement:

"Berkley Ross Conner Jr. is a mature minor. Will not condone blood
transfusion but will accept [blood fractions and blood alternatives].
Berkley, at 4 months shy of 18 yrs is able to make his own decisions. This
statement by parent /s/ Berkley Conner."

Eight days later, on November 22, 2005, Stork, along with other concurring physicians at
OHSU, prepared a handwritten letter to the court requesting an ex parte order authorizing
them "to be able to transfuse [petitioner] with blood products if necessary, in the future, to
prevent death or serious irreversible harm." The court granted that order.

The following day, petitioner's parents requested and were afforded a
hearing. Present at that hearing were petitioner's mother, father, and attorney; petitioner
also testified by speaker phone. During the hearing, petitioner's attorney explained that
"the only real issue here is [petitioner's] capacity to make [health care] decisions under the
law." Petitioner's attorney submitted to the court several cases from other jurisdictions
that had applied the common law "mature minor" doctrine in cases similar to petitioner's.
He also stated, almost parenthetically and with no supporting argument, that "the matter
of due process, equal protection, and fundamental fairness would demand that a child
that's that close to being 18 should have an opportunity to be heard." The court heard
testimony from petitioner's father, mother, and from petitioner himself, primarily
regarding his capacity to make health care decisions concerning blood transfusions and
the sincerity of his faith. Specifically, petitioner and his parents testified that he is a
senior in high school, he has a 3.5 grade point average, he is interested in chemistry and
physics, he has spoken at length to the doctors regarding his diagnosis, and he fully
understands the nature of his disease and the consequences of refusing a blood
transfusion. They further explained that petitioner refused the blood products explicitly
on religious grounds that he has held since age 10 and that he himself had chosen to be
baptized in the church the previous summer.

The juvenile court declined to create and apply an Oregon version of the
mature minor doctrine, noting that its "obligation is to enforce the laws of this state, and
the law in this state is that somebody under the age of 18 is a minor and therefore does not
have the legal capacity to make this kind of a medical decision." The court then issued an
order stating: "This Court's 11/22/05 order authorizing transfusions if deemed necessary
by the attending physicians to prevent death or serious irreversible harm is hereby
continued."

On appeal, petitioner makes a variety of legal arguments supporting his
contention that a mature minor exception should be applied in the present case. He
explains that the legislature has long afforded minors the ability to make health care
decisions on certain issues, such as treatment of venereal disease, ORS 109.610; testing
and treatment of HIV, ORS 433.045 ("[a]n HIV test shall be considered diagnosis of
venereal disease for purposes of ORS 109.640"); sterilization, ORS 436.205(2) and ORS
436.225; and abortion, ORS 109.640 and OAR 413-040-0430(2). He points out that other
jurisdictions have allowed mature minors to make health care decisions, including refusal
of treatment. See In re E.G., 133 Ill 2d 98, 549 NE2d 322 (1989) (17-year-old Jevohah's
Witness with leukemia allowed to make decision regarding refusal of blood transfusion as
a mature minor even though the age of majority in Illinois is 18); In re Swan, 569 A2d
1202 (1990) (minor's stated desire not to remain on life support adhered to); In re Rena,
46 Mass App Ct 335, 337, 705 NE2d 1155, 1157 (1999) ("[I]t is appropriate for a judge
to consider the maturity of the child to make an informed choice."). Petitioner argues that
the federal and state constitutions provide protections not only for adults, but also for
minors, ensuring them free exercise of religion and substantive due process. He notes in
particular that the Supreme Court has deemed unconstitutional a flat ban on abortions for
minors, requiring instead individualized hearings. See Planned Parenthood of Missouri v.
Danforth, 428 US 52, 74, 96 S Ct 2831, 49 L Ed 2d 788 (1976) ("Minors, as well as
adults, are protected by the Constitution and possess constitutional rights."); Bellotti v.
Baird, 443 US 622, 633, 99 S Ct 3035, 61 L Ed 2d 797 (1979) ("A child, merely on
account of his minority, is not beyond the protection of the Constitution.").

Although petitioner raises complex and interesting issues, we do not have
occasion to consider them in the present case. In issuing the order from which petitioner
appeals, the juvenile court relied solely on ORS 419B.110, which provides,

"Whether or not a petition has been filed, if a child requires
emergency medical care, including surgery, and no parent is available or
willing to consent to the care, a judge of the juvenile court may authorize
the care. The judge may thereafter direct the filing of a new petition."

(Emphasis added.) The order itself states that petitioner was born on March 3, 1988, and
it authorizes petitioner's physician "to retain physical custody of the above-named child
for purposes of providing and consenting to all necessary medical treatment to preserve
this child's health and life." (Emphasis added.) A "child" for purposes of juvenile court
jurisdiction is "a person who is under 18 years of age." ORS 419B.100(1). Thus,
regardless of whether the order was valid when issued, its force and effect ended on
March 3, 2006, petitioner's eighteenth birthday. Thereafter, the juvenile court had no
jurisdiction over him. Any opinion we could render on the validity of its order would
have no practical effect on the rights of any party; it would be purely advisory. The case
is therefore moot. Brumnett v. PSRB, 315 Or 402, 405, 848 P2d 1194 (1993).

In explaining why he is appealing from the order despite having reached his
eighteenth birthday, petitioner cites ORS 419B.328(2)(e). That statute provides, in part:

"(1) The court shall make a child found to be within the jurisdiction
of the court as provided in ORS 419B.100 a ward of the court.

"(2) The court's wardship continues, and the ward is subject to the
court's jurisdiction, until one of the following occurs:

"* * * *

"(e) The ward becomes 21 years of age."

ORS 419B.328 (emphasis added). That statute, however, does not apply to petitioner, for
the following reasons.

Although the juvenile court's authority generally extends only to cases
"involving a person who is under 18 years of age," ORS 419B.100, the statute quoted
above creates an exception and extends the authority to persons between the ages of 18
and 21--but only if the person is a ward of the court found to be within the jurisdiction of
the court "as provided in ORS 419B.100." ORS 419B.328(1) (emphasis added). In the
present case, the juvenile court has made no such finding. To the extent that the court
found petitioner to be within its jurisdiction, it did so pursuant to ORS 419B.110, not "as
provided in ORS 419B.100." The juvenile court's initial ex parte order authorizing
emergency medical care, dated November 22, 2005, recites that it is issued "[p]ursuant to
ORS 419B.110." Indeed, ORS 419B.100 was not available to the court even if it had
sought to rely on it. The state did not appear, and therefore did not meet its burden of
establishing a basis for jurisdiction under ORS 419B.100. See State ex rel Juv. Dept. v.
Froats, 117 Or App 467, 470, 844 P2d 917 (1992) (state must prove by a preponderance
of the evidence that the allegations in a petition alleging the juvenile court's jurisdiction
would sustain a finding of that court's jurisdiction). And although, under ORS
419B.809(1), a "person" other than the state "may file a petition in the juvenile court
alleging that a child named therein is within the jurisdiction of the court under ORS
419B.100," neither Stork nor any other "person" did so; such a petition must contain
specific information about the child, including, among other things, the child's name, age,
and residence, the facts that bring the child within the jurisdiction of the court under ORS
419B.100, and the name and residence of the child's parents. ORS 419B.809(4); see alsoFroats, 117 Or App at 470 ("In determining whether the juvenile court has properly found
jurisdiction over a child, * * * we consider whether the allegations in the petition, if
proved, would sustain a finding of jurisdiction * * * ." (Emphasis added.))

In sum, the court in this case derived its statutory authority to order medical
care from ORS 419B.110, which confers such authority "[w]hether or not a petition has
been filed." It did not invoke the authority of ORS 419B.100, nor did it make any
findings that would justify such an invocation even if it had been attempted. Thus,
although the court may have lawfully issued an order that applied to petitioner, it did not
do so pursuant to ORS 419B.100. That being the case, petitioner was never found to be
"within the jurisdiction of the court as provided in ORS 419B.100." ORS 419B.328(1).
Thus, ORS 419B.328(2)(e) does not authorize the juvenile court to exercise continuing
jurisdiction over petitioner, who is no longer a child. The court's order authorizing
emergency medical care ceased to have any legal effect on petitioner's eighteenth
birthday. The present appeal is therefore moot.

Appeal dismissed.

1. Petitioner's mother, while supportive of his faith and his decisions based thereon,
is not a Jehovah's Witness.